United States v. City of Los Angeles
288 F.3d 391, 2002 WL 649190 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), a party has a right to intervene in an action if it demonstrates a significant protectable interest related to the litigation that may be impaired by the disposition of the action, and this interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties. A government entity acting as an employer is not presumed to adequately represent the interests of its employees' union in litigation that could affect a collective bargaining agreement.
Facts:
- Following an investigation into misconduct within the LAPD's Rampart Division CRASH unit, the United States prepared to sue the City of Los Angeles for a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing.
- Before the suit was filed, the United States and the City of Los Angeles negotiated a proposed consent decree to resolve the anticipated allegations.
- The Los Angeles Police Protective League is the designated bargaining unit for approximately 8,600 LAPD officers and operates under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing their employment.
- The Police League believed that the terms of the proposed consent decree were incompatible with the existing MOU.
- A number of community groups and individuals, who had suffered from or worked to reform the alleged unconstitutional police misconduct, also sought to participate in the lawsuit to ensure the reform's success.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a complaint in U.S. District Court against the City of Los Angeles, its Board of Police Commissioners, and the LAPD.
- On the same day, the parties jointly filed a proposed consent decree for the court's approval.
- The Los Angeles Police Protective League filed a motion to intervene as a matter of right, or alternatively, for permissive intervention.
- A coalition of community groups and individuals (the Community Interveners) also filed a motion to intervene as of right or permissively.
- The district court denied all motions for intervention from both the Police League and the Community Interveners.
- The Police League and the Community Interveners appealed the denial of their motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-party, such as a police union, have a right to intervene in a lawsuit under FRCP 24(a) when it has a legally protected interest in a collective bargaining agreement that may be impaired by a proposed consent decree, and its interests diverge from the existing government defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, Circuit Judge.
Yes, a non-party police union has a right to intervene. A party is entitled to intervention as of right under FRCP 24(a) when it satisfies the four-part test: a significant protectable interest, potential impairment of that interest, timeliness, and inadequate representation by existing parties. The court found the Police League had a protectable interest in both the merits of the case (since its members were accused of misconduct) and the remedy (since the consent decree could alter their collective bargaining agreement). The disposition of the action could impair this interest because the consent decree proposed to alter dispute resolution processes governed by state law and the MOU. Finally, the City could not adequately represent the League's interest, as the City was its adversary in the collective bargaining process, and the normal presumption of adequate government representation does not apply when the government acts as an employer against its employees' union.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of intervention as of right, particularly in civil rights litigation involving government entities and their employees. It establishes that the presumption of adequate representation by a government party is rebutted when the government acts as an employer with interests adverse to its employees' union. The ruling also emphasizes that a court must assess the right to intervene based on the litigation's current scope, not on a speculative, unapproved settlement like a proposed consent decree. This strengthens the ability of unions to protect collective bargaining agreements from being unilaterally altered through consent decrees to which they are not a party.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. City of Los Angeles